CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING Drawing by Ruairi O Brien CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING.

CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING

www.transportlearning.net

Drawing by Ruairi O Brien




topics

Where are we now?

What’s road user charging (RUC)?

Why apply RUC? Economic theory

What are we trying to achieve with RUC?

How does RUC achieve it?

Some examples – Singapore, Trondheim, London, Stockholm, Italy, Znojmo

How to implement RUC – maximising the chances

Generating RUC options for your own town/city



Where are we now?

long delays due to congestion

economic lost (time, energy)

air pollution and noise cause health damage

shortage of parking place

unpleasant street environment-cities

severance of social networks

SO…

NO for increasing capacity by building new roads-due to induce traffic-long been out of transport policy agenda

YES for balance-travel/traffic demand management



What’s RUC?

Simply: charging drivers for their road use/driving

Aren’t they charged enough?

• purchase tax, road taxes, compulsory insurance, petrol tax, etc.

NO

Marginal cost of driving?

Supermarket parallel!



Economic theory suggests

the cost borne by the user of roads should reflects the sum of the marginal costs they impose on:

infrastructure provider• cost for operation and road damage

other road users• cost for congestion, risk of accidents

outside transport system• cost for accident externalities and environmental damage

RUC adds these marginal costs onto real cost of driving - drivers take more economically rational travel decisions - traffic volumes reduce



What do we achieve?

reduced congestion-faster car and public transport journeys, safer cycling and walking,…...

reduced environmental pollution-breathable air, quieter streets, less green house effect,…...

revenue -provides frequent, reliable, comfortable public transport, better cycling/ walking environment, better roads, safety measures, …...



Acceptability

It’s a problem! - huge political sensitivity

Novelty

Not wanting to pay for what’s been free before

Equity issues

Conventional measures - more popular

But acceptability increases if cash spent on transport and environment



Has it been tried somewhere?

Singapore Area Licence Scheme in 1975

Bergen Cordon Crossing in 1986

Oslo Cordon Crossing in 1990

Trondheim Cordon Crossing in 1991

Singapore Electronic Road Pricing -combination of cordon crossing and point crossing scheme in 1998

London Area License Scheme 2003 (to be extended 2006)

Stockholm cordon crossing 2006

Major Italian cities – area licences



What is an RUC scheme like?

Principles of charging

• Area licence

• Cordon

• Distance/speed based

• Charge and time of charging

• Who is charged; and exemptions

For what is revenue used?

Administration/technology - how it is operated

• Charging and billing

• Enforcement



Singapore: demand management

ALS (1975)

Rush hour traffic reduced by 45%

traffic speeds increased by 20%

accidents fell by 25%

ERP (1998)

Daily Traffic volumes reduced by 20-24%

speeds from 40 to 45 kmh



Singapore- charging principles

area: CBD-restricted zone and some expressways

time: initially morning peak, later covered evening peak, thereafter included off-peak, EP operates during working hours including Saturday till 2 pm

type: initially Area Licensing then inbound Cordon Crossing

level of charge: $3 for a daily, $2 for off-peak licence, ERP - varies

charging entity: vehicles

variations: time of day, type of vehicle, location (ERP)

Technology – on-board meter and smartcard, debited when vehicle passes charging point

Charges varied every 3 months to keep traffic level of service at same level

Enforcement – camera/ANPR



Trondheim: infrastructure investments

Many new roads, such as new airport road, tunnels

New bypass

Cycling paths

environmental measures

improved public transport



Trondheim - charging principles

Area: built area including airport road

time: operates during working hours

type: inbound Cordon Crossing

level of charge: €3 for crossing

charging entity: vehicles

variations: time of day, type of vehicle, location (EP), maximum use per period



London scheme

Plans for many years

Legal basis - 1999 London Government Act and 2000 Transport Act

Area licence scheme for central area (21 km2), intro Feb 2003

Up to 50,000 vehicles per hour into this area

Planned to raise £130 million per year – in fact £70 million

Revenues hypothecated for 10 years

Exemptions - residents (90% discount)

Many payment methods, ANPR and foot patrol enforcement



London Scheme area



London Scheme 2

Congestion inside zone reduced by 30%

Traffic levels reduced by 18%

30% reduction in number of cars and 65,000 fewer car movements

20% increase in movements by buses coaches and taxis

Increase of 29,000 bus passengers entering zone during morning peak

Bus reliability and journey times improved - additional time passengers wait at bus stops caused by service delays or missing buses cut by 20% across all of London and by 30% in and around charging zone

Some debate about retail impacts

Little diversion of traffic around zone



Netherlands

Urban cordons planned on major roads in Randstad

2.5 Euro charge would decrease peak traffic on motorways by 35%

First step towards kilometer-heffing

Four Randstad cities very unkeen (economic development) but bribed by Dutch Ministry of Transport

Then a dead leader was elected and it all went down the drain, for now



Implementing RUC

To maximise chances of RUC scheme being implemented, need:

• Agreement on objectives and that there is a problem to solve

• Political champion

• Resources – people and money

• (Preferably) only one decision making body

• Single implementing agency

• Ability to improve alternatives (widely) before pricing implemented

• Straightforward and supportive enabling legislation

• Effective marketing/communication strategy, from the start



Conclusion

Road pricing - can it ever be acceptable?

Norway, Durham, London show it can be

Key elements in success:

• Perception of problem

• Business community support

• Political consensus OR champion (e.g. Ken)

• Simple scheme, at least to start with

• Hypothecation of revenues

• Obvious up-front investment in alternatives



Useful references

http://www.europrice-network.org

http://www.progress-project.org

http://www.imprint-eu.org/seminars.htm

• Following papers by

• Begg (nice pictures)

• Chin (Singapore)

• Baker (acceptability)

• Can all be downloaded

CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING Drawing by Ruairi O Brien CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING.

Documents

Transcript of CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING Drawing by Ruairi O Brien CONGESTION CHARGING AND PRICING.